"Progressive" Congresswomen Start To Show Their Stripes

[Padawanbater2]

Impeaching him on weak evidence

Obstruction of Justice
Emoluments clause
Nepotism

There are over a dozen legitimate reasons Trump can be impeached, all with strong evidence, and that doesn't even include the crimes committed by cabinet members he appointed who've already been indicted or the 70+ list of appointees who've resigned or been fired and the controversies surrounding each of them

Ok Mr. intellectually dishonest. But the midterms that happened shortly after the impeachment was initiated were a disaster for Republicans. Rarely does the party in power gain in the midterms. The typical number of House seats lost in the midterms is 26-30. Democrats gained 4 seats and it is generally understood to be a lashback over the Republican impeachment of Clinton.

Clinton did not win in 2000 because he was not running due to term limitations. If that had not been the case, he likely would have won.

I would say that a lame duck President gaining seats in a midterm election in the middle of an impeachment directly disproves your claim that "Exactly the opposite is true."

Clinton was impeached for lying to congress about having sex with an intern. Most Americans didn't really care that Clinton had sex with an intern or lied to Congress about it, most people saw it as Republican kabuki theater, which it was

Trump is accused of 11 different counts of obstruction, has foreign dignitaries stay at his own personal hotels who overpay and end up with sweet $100 billion weapons deals, appoints his daughter and son in law (who is also under federal investigation) to high positions in government, has fired or lost the most appointee positions in any recent administration that I can think of, has spent more on vacations and golfing in three years than Obama did in 8, separates families and holds immigrants in cages without showers, water, blankets, or beds for weeks at a time (24 people have already died in American custody under Trump)..

The only people who would support Trump are the ~30% that would never leave his side anyway

Exactly the opposite is true. In the only modern historical example we have, impeachment of the president levied by the House, then later acquitted by the Senate, led to the opposition party taking power. Are you trying to against historical fact? Apparently you believe if Pelosi levies impeachment charges against Trump and he is acquitted by the Republican Senate, it'll only benefit him and the Republican party come next election when the historical evidence proves otherwise

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Obstruction of Justice
Emoluments clause
Nepotism

There are over a dozen legitimate reasons Trump can be impeached, all with strong evidence, and that doesn't even include the crimes committed by cabinet members he appointed who've already been indicted or the 70+ list of appointees who've resigned or been fired and the controversies surrounding each of them

Clinton was impeached for lying to congress about having sex with an intern. Most Americans didn't really care that Clinton had sex with an intern or lied to Congress about it, most people saw it as Republican kabuki theater, which it was

Trump is accused of 11 different counts of obstruction, has foreign dignitaries stay at his own personal hotels who overpay and end up with sweet $100 billion weapons deals, appoints his daughter and son in law (who is also under federal investigation) to high positions in government, has fired or lost the most appointee positions in any recent administration that I can think of, has spent more on vacations and golfing in three years than Obama did in 8, separates families and holds immigrants in cages without showers, water, blankets, or beds for weeks at a time (24 people have already died in American custody under Trump)..

The only people who would support Trump are the ~30% that would never leave his side anyway

Exactly the opposite is true. In the only modern historical example we have, impeachment of the president levied by the House, then later acquitted by the Senate, led to the opposition party taking power. Are you trying to against historical fact? Apparently you believe if Pelosi levies impeachment charges against Trump and he is acquitted by the Republican Senate, it'll only benefit him and the Republican party come next election when the historical evidence proves otherwise

Except you are wrong. Regardless of the charges against him at this time, the Senate will not impeach. One way to ensure that every Trump's base all gets their fat, racist asses to the voting booths is to impeach him with less than damning evidence. Trump's supporters number more than about 30% and they have less regard for what is fact than you can imagine.

Your claim of historical fact is utterly baseless. The election of Bush cannot be tied to the impeachment. Sorry. You play fast and loose with the facts in an intellectually dishonest way.

You want to throw Brer rabbit in the briar patch. I trust Nancy Pelosi's political acumen more than I trust yours - because you have none. Tell me again how Pelosi owes all those Republicans who voted for her to be Speaker.

 

[captainmorgan]

They haven't done shit,the white house just laughs at them when anyone is told to testify.

 

[TacoMac]

They haven't done shit,the white house just laughs at them when anyone is told to testify.

That's true, yes.

And it's easy to look at that and get very upset and frustrated. You have to understand though that in the long run it's all going to backfire on Trump CATASTROPHICALLY.

Many of these suits now in the courts regarding subpoenas are all going to go the House's way. Trump is going to lose all of them. Every last single one.

And when he does, most instances are going to fold automatically into another criminal charge of obstruction. What's more, all the no-shows can also be cited for obstruction as well in the long run, so they're not doing themselves any favors. They'll no doubt argue they were following orders of the President, but that doesn't hold water. The President can't issues orders quashing a legal subpoena.

So they'll lose that argument and go down with Trump in the end.

Nixon tried to dodge it all as well, and it took 2 years and 2 months or so to bring him down, but that was in large part due to a good many republicans getting sick of him as well, something that is not happening this time.

Things wont start coming to a real head until a lot of these court cases start getting settled. Then the real shit show will begin in earnest.

Either way, Trump is fucked. So are a lot of the people that worked and are working for him. It's just a matter of time as to when they all get it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Except you are wrong. Regardless of the charges against him at this time, the Senate will not impeach.

I don't expect the Senate to impeach Trump. If you go to 2020, Trump will claim the Democratic party didn't have enough evidence to levy charges under a Democratically held congress, and his narrative wins more so than if all the evidence of all the illegal and unethical things he's done as president come to light under a House impeachment investigation

You know as well as everyone else does Trump has committed impeachable offenses

 

[hanimmal]

Exactly the opposite is true. In the only modern historical example we have, impeachment of the president levied by the House, then later acquitted by the Senate, led to the opposition party taking power. Are you trying to against historical fact? Apparently you believe if Pelosi levies impeachment charges against Trump and he is acquitted by the Republican Senate, it'll only benefit him and the Republican party come next election when the historical evidence proves otherwise

1. The russian/saudi/trump troll farms didn't exist back then. He gets everyone so juiced up on racial bullshit, trolls take over and make it impossible to have a honest conversation.

2. Clinton kept the white house, he busted his ass worked hard to show he was worth mishandling a situation that was him acting pretty shitty. Trump is burning everything, trolling everyone, and inviting/colluding/illiciting foreign election interference.

I don't expect the Senate to impeach Trump. If you go to 2020, Trump will claim the Democratic party didn't have enough evidence to levy charges under a Democratically held congress, and his narrative wins more so than if all the evidence of all the illegal and unethical things he's done as president come to light under a House impeachment investigation

You know as well as everyone else does Trump has committed impeachable offenses

He has committed criminal acts, if found guilty in a court he deserves to serve time like everyone else that would defraud the American people.

 

[captainmorgan]

The supreme court just said gerrymandering was fine and you think the courts are going to save us, what if the courts have been compromised more than you know? If they are tRUmp wins without breaking a sweat.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

No shit. This guy has never taken part in a political campaign but he sure has the feeling that he knows what he is talking about.

 

[Padawanbater2]

No shit. This guy has never taken part in a political campaign but he sure has the feeling that he knows what he is talking about.

People who've never volunteered to work on a political campaign don't know what they're talking about when it comes to politics? So the majority of the American people, and the majority of the Democratic party, then?

This is a way for you to dismiss the opinions of those who don't meet the arbitrary standard you've set because you know you can't match the substance of their arguments, nothing more


Everything you do is meant elicit an emotional response based on identity politics and personality, and ignore the substance of the issue at hand because you have no substantive argument(s) against it

 

[Unclebaldrick]

People who've never volunteered to work on a political campaign don't know what they're talking about when it comes to politics? So the majority of the American people, and the majority of the Democratic party, then?

This is a way for you to dismiss the opinions of those who don't meet the arbitrary standard you've set because you know you can't match the substance of their arguments, nothing more


Everything you do is meant elicit an emotional response based on identity politics and personality, and ignore the substance of the issue at hand because you have no substantive argument(s) against it

Yeah, I dismiss medical opinions from janitors who never attended medical school too.

Especially ones who have given so much wrong advice or opinions in the past. Sad.

As far as "substance" goes, I addressed it and disproved it.

Pigeon.

 

[hanimmal]

The supreme court just said gerrymandering was fine and you think the courts are going to save us, what if the courts have been compromised more than you know? If they are tRUmp wins without breaking a sweat.

https://fortune.com/2019/06/17/supreme-court-gerrymandering-decision/

They left it in the states hands to decide about districts leaving it out of Feds hands. It was actually a win for Democrats since it was the state courts that said it was not ok, it was appealed to the supreme court who said no thank you. At least pretty sure thats how it went.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Yeah, I dismiss medical opinions from janitors who never attended medical school too.

Volunteering for a political campaign does not validate your political opinions, take for instance you and Buck, who I assume have, since you're both regurgitating the same retarded argument without having thought it through.. You're saying the majority of minorities, women, poor, uneducated, etc. all political opinion is worthless since they haven't volunteered for a political campaign.. Using your own logic, that makes you racist, and misogynistic, and you hate the poor and uneducated. You're saying most minorities and women are too stupid to hold valid political opinions since they've never volunteered for a political campaign..

 

[captainmorgan]

https://fortune.com/2019/06/17/supreme-court-gerrymandering-decision/

They left it in the states hands to decide about districts leaving it out of Feds hands. It was actually a win for Democrats since it was the state courts that said it was not ok, it was appealed to the supreme court who said no thank you. At least pretty sure thats how it went.

I wouldn't count that as a win, at best it lets both sides gerrymander the states they control. Not exactly a win for democracy.

 

[UncleBuck]

Volunteering for a political campaign does not validate your political opinions, take for instance you and Buck, who I assume have, since you're both regurgitating the same retarded argument without having thought it through.. You're saying the majority of minorities, women, poor, uneducated, etc. all political opinion is worthless since they haven't volunteered for a political campaign.. Using your own logic, that makes you racist, and misogynistic, and you hate the poor and uneducated. You're saying most minorities and women are too stupid to hold valid political opinions since they've never volunteered for a political campaign..

Are you crying

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Volunteering for a political campaign does not validate your political opinions, take for instance you and Buck, who I assume have, since you're both regurgitating the same retarded argument without having thought it through.. You're saying the majority of minorities, women, poor, uneducated, etc. all political opinion is worthless since they haven't volunteered for a political campaign.. Using your own logic, that makes you racist, and misogynistic, and you hate the poor and uneducated. You're saying most minorities and women are too stupid to hold valid political opinions since they've never volunteered for a political campaign..

I never said it did. I said that people with no political experience very seldom understand politics. In addition, you have shown that your understanding of politics is subpar. In addition, you are intellectually dishonest so I am going to ignore your logic because it is not logical at all. Well, I am not ignoring it... I am enjoying it. I love getting you upset to the point where you just start to make up lies - it's funny. Thanks.

I have volunteered on many campaigns, been a paid staffer on two of them and worked in the Capitol for two years. I am not saying that this makes me understand politics. I had a better political sense and much more knowledge than you do when I was 20 years old when I had little actual campaign experience. Your lack of knowledge mostly stems from the fact that you are intellectually dishonest. I don't think it can be cured.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Are you crying

No shit. I am laughing my ass off.

More proof at how completely worthless these people are and why they should be kept from politics like a powerful toxin should be kept out of reservoirs. They are symptoms.

 

[hanimmal]

Wouldn't count that as



I wouldn't count that as a win, at best it lets both sides gerrymander the states they control. Not exactly a win for democracy.

Fair enough, I guess I thought the decision from the state was gerrymandering wasn't legal and that they had to rewrite them unpartisan-like. I think Pennsylvania was that way, but not sure about others.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I have volunteered on many campaigns, been a paid staffer on two of them and worked in the Capitol for two years.

There you have it. Proof working on a political campaign doesn't make you politically astute.

 

[UncleBuck]

There you have it. Proof working on a political campaign doesn't make you politically astute.

Have you ever had a fat chick jerk you off with her feet before curtis

 

[hanimmal]

There you have it. Proof working on a political campaign doesn't make you politically astute.

Thats not how 'proof' really works. You have 'proof' he worked on campaigns but that sentence didn't say anything about astuteness.